These alterations have been through the wringer, failing to reach the voting stage last year within the SEC which lead the newly created FSOC (a combination of 10 government leaders including the Treasury Secretary, Fed Chairman, FDIC chair and others) to re-propose such changes back to the SEC. By law, the FSOC actually has no power to do anything except propose changes and in this case they proposed changes to the SEC which had already been suggested and rejected.

Anyone remember "double-secret probation"?

Getting to the heart of the matter, yesterday's proposals included an out for the industry. One of the options is to retain the $1 NAV but impose a redemption fee once certain holdings decline to 15 percent of the fund. Current regulations require this bucket of assets to remain higher than 30 percent so it seems the fee would be imposed after the fund is already in wind-down mode. Additionally, the fund may retain cash equivalent status for accounting purposes.

This is effectively no change from current rules but allows the SEC and FSOC to tout victory over the industry at the same time - a typical Washington/private sector "win-win" that accomplishes little in reality after great drama over the last five years.

If all of this reads like the WWF (or as the kids now call it, the WWE) I am not too surprised. A quick search reveals this synopsis of a recent event:

The Shield ended up winning when Ambrose pinned Kingston, but Team Hell No came down the ramp and threw Ambrose and Rollins back into the ring, where they were subsequently met with an RKO and Brogue Kick to finish the show.

The views expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of SVB Financial Group, or SVB Asset Management, or any of its affiliates. This material, including without limitation the statistical information herein, is provided for informational purposes only. The material is based in part upon information from third-party sources that we believe to be reliable, but which has not been independently verified by us and, as such, we do not represent that the information is accurate or complete. The information should not be viewed as tax, investment, legal or other advice nor is it to be relied on in making an investment or other decisions. You should obtain relevant and specific professional advice before making any investment decision. Nothing relating to the material should be construed as a solicitation or offer, or recommendation, to acquire or dispose of any investment or to engage in any other transaction.

SVB Asset Management, a registered investment advisor, is a non-bank affiliate of Silicon Valley Bank and member of SVB Financial Group. Products offered by SVB Asset Management are not FDIC insured, are not deposits or other obligations of Silicon Valley Bank, and may lose value.

The views expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of SVB Financial Group, or Silicon Valley Bank, or any of its affiliates.

Yesterday, the SEC announced proposed changes to the money market fund (MMF) industry, specifically designed to address the challenges of 2008*.

These alterations have been through the wringer, failing to reach the voting stage last year within the SEC which lead the newly created FSOC (a combination of 10 government leaders including the Treasury Secretary, Fed Chairman, FDIC chair and others) to re-propose such changes back to the SEC. By law, the FSOC actually has no power to do anything except propose changes and in this case they proposed changes to the SEC which had already been suggested and rejected.

Anyone remember "double-secret probation"?

Getting to the heart of the matter, yesterday's proposals included an out for the industry. One of the options is to retain the $1 NAV but impose a redemption fee once certain holdings decline to 15 percent of the fund. Current regulations require this bucket of assets to remain higher than 30 percent so it seems the...Read More